Friday, July 12, 2013

No kidding

At one point during his closing argument at the George Zimmerman trial Thursday, prosecutor Bernie de la Ronda referred to "This man, Trayvon Martin," but then he quickly caught himself. "This teenager," he said.

Otherwise he was careful to emphasize Martin's youth in his speech to the jury, referring to him variously as a "young boy," "an innocent 17-year-old boy," a "5'11'', 158-pound kid" and so on. (UPDATE -- In Friday's rebuttal closing, de la Ronda's co-counsel John Guy referred to Martin as a "child" at least half a dozen times) In the battle over jury instructions, the state tried but failed to add a charge of child abuse to the bill of particulars against Zimmerman, given that Martin was a minor the night Zimmerman shot and killed him during an altercation in Sanford, Fla., in February, 2012.

The report cited "children as young as 11 being tried as adults in Florida,” and said that “the confluence of mandatory transfer laws and extremely harsh, mandatory adult sentences, even for pre-adolescent children, make Florida a prime focus for reform in this arena.”

In 2011, Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in charge of the Zimmerman case, indicted a 12-year-old Jacksonville youth as an adult for the murder of his 2-year-old brother. Earlier this year, the defendant, now 14, pleaded guilty as an adult to lesser charges as part of a deal that will keep him locked up until he's 19.

Somehow, I doubt she would have referred to him as a “young boy” and a “kid” in that closing argument.

Note, I am just now (2:45 p.m.) starting to listen to an audio recording of today's final closing arguments so I have no view on them yet. If you watched or want to add thoughts on that, too, in comments, feel free. When there's a verdict I'll start a new open thread.

UPDATE --OK, listened to the defense closing and the state's final rebuttal. Came away with the same thought I had yesterday -- If Trayvon Martin were on trial non charges of felony battery against Zimmerman, the state, as defense attorneys, established reasonable doubt of his guilt. But to my mind they didn't go nearly far enough in establishing Zimmerman's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was waiting for that evidence through the whole trial -- a strong theory of the case that fit the evidence. Instead, today, in end, I got a wild guess, the same wild guess that some commenters have been peddling here for months, that George Zimmerman the doughty vigilante chased wee cowering Trayvon Martin through the subdivision for several minutes before, mirabile dictu!, they ended up at the sidewalk T not far from where Zimmerman had parked his vehicle. Zimmerman struck first and was getting the better of Martin when, because he wanted to, he drew and shot him, even though he knew police were on the way.

It makes no damn sense, but jurors are evidently at least considering it, as they did not, as I predicted, come back with a speedy verdict this afternoon.

You never know with jurors, though. They might have reached a general consensus either way in their first go `round the table, then decided simply to sleep on it before coming back tomorrow to vote formally and deliver their verdict. They might have found themselves deeply split and figured it would be best to come back refreshed tomorrow morning and really tuck into going over the case witness by witness, exhibit by exhibit.

My guess is that a quick verdict favors Zimmerman, and if the deliberations go into Sunday it will suggest that they're looking for a compromise -- a manslaughter verdict -- which would really not be much of a compromise at all as far as Zimmerman is concerned.

I'm dismayed but not surprised to see protesters gathering near the courthouse. All that says is "mob justice," which is a mindset that has infected this case from the beginning.

No predictions from me, but this notice: I don't expect the jury's verdict to change any minds, just as I'm certain it won't change my mind. I've caught most of the trial and, like many of you, feel at least as qualified as the half-dozen formerly disengaged jurors (from whom much has been kept) to have a sound opinion on this case.

Mine, obviously, is that the state did not, not by a long shot, come close to meeting its burden of proof and that Zimmerman should be found not guilty.

Some of you may think the state did meet its burden, at least on manslaugher. Others may grudgingly acknowledge that I'm legally right, but think Zimmerman is a contemptible and racist oaf nevertheless.

The conclusion these jurors reach won't vindicate or discredit any of us.

Zorn, I'm guessing that the lawyer from Florida has in fact paid attention and that he knows Florida law better than you do. GZ *says* he didn't "pursue" him. He DID chase after him. He'd not have been hehind those condos AT ALL if he'd been doing what he says he was doing. Neither looking for a street name (in the neighborhood he "patrolled" and knew) or a house number takes place in the back yard space of houses.

So, right there, we know that he has lied -- those were either not his intentions at all and/or that was only a part of his intent. Without the intent to pursue or chase, why would he be on the walkway between people's back yards?

ZORN REPLY -- Jen, my poor soul, do you have any idea what the words UNDISPUTED FACT mean? It seems that you share the same crippling lack of knowledge suffered by this poor attorney whom the Miami Herald didn't bother to edit. Tsk.

Jen: "or a house number takes place in the back yard space of houses."
There was a walk way in and to the rear, I assume it is difficult to see through the front of the homes to get a fix on where some one is on that walk way.
I am not dissagreeing with you, had GZ, stayed back, things may have been different.

Funny, today Mr. Guy, in his rebuttal, criticized Zimmerman for NOT pursuing Trayvon. Said he should have gotten into his truck and driven down to the back gate and cut him off.

Which didn't seem to register with the prosecutor; since Zimmerman didn't do that, wouldn't that have meant Trayvon was left free to get to his 'daddy's fiance's' home? He sure had enough time; over two minutes to go about 200 feet.

In fact, Rachel Jeantel said he did exactly that. Trayvon told her he was near safety, at the back of 'his daddy's fiance's' townhouse. That's why she didn't call the police when she couldn't re-connect with Trayvon after the phone went dead the last time. She testified she assumed that someone had come out and helped Trayvon.

There's no testimony, or evidence of any kind, that Zimmerman did anything to prevent Trayvon from getting home. The altercation didn't take place near the 'area of his daddy's fiance's' townhouse. It took place back at the top of the T, by Jenna Lauer and John Good's townhomes.

The evidence given indicates that Trayvon had to have run back, from the safety he could have enjoyed by simply going in to watch the NBA All Star game, he supposedly was interested in. Instead, he ran back and assaulted Zimmerman. Isn't that obvious?

This case stinks on all levels.
Every one involved was in the right and the wrong.
Lessons to be learned for future CCW hopefulls.
I predict, based on nothing more then an educated guess, GZ manslaughter.

"Jen, my poor soul, do you have any idea what the words UNDISPUTED FACT mean? It seems that you share the same crippling lack of knowledge suffered by this poor attorney whom the Miami Herald didn't bother to edit. Tsk."

I know, isn't it shocking how people are just so DUMB? I mean, the number of people you have to discount and tsk at and call poor souls really seems almost overwhelming.

I'm sorry that being so right all the time, so certain is probably taxing for you. I'm betting you'll enjoy the rest when this is all done.

ZORN REPLY -- It is difficult. I'm glad you understand. All I ask is that people who comment here make the rudimentary effort to separate fact from opinion and to have the tiniest idea of what the hell they're talking about. It's a high bar for many of them to clear. Those who do clear it find I don't patronize them. Those who don't sometimes try to fight back with sarcasm, which makes them sound even stupider.

"Said he should have gotten into his truck and driven down to the back gate and cut him off.

Which didn't seem to register with the prosecutor; since Zimmerman didn't do that, wouldn't that have meant Trayvon was left free to get to his 'daddy's fiance's' home? He sure had enough time; over two minutes to go about 200 feet."

What? That wouldn't be "pursuit" -- GZ would have been on the street, in his vehicle, down at the other end by the back gate. TM would never have gotten that far. He might have lingered in the middle area, though, talking to the girlfriend, maybe eating some skittles before he got home. And then the cops would have gotten there and figured out where he lived and GZ could say, oh sorry for calling you out tonight, but better safe than sorry and gone on his merry way.

That 2 minutes plus time? There's also the meeting up time, the rolling around fighting time, the screaming, and the shooting in there. The cops got there FAST. Just not fast enough.

Let me amend that -- I shouldn't have said he wouldn't have gotten that far, just like I won't speculate about GZ getting out of the car or anything else. But, it would have been a far different situation than what we had -- but, so what?

One thing about my profession, you never forget you're dealing with minor children, which is anyone under the age of 18. I look on my high school students as children because that's what they are. It doesn't matter that they swear, participate in harassment and violence (fighting), they're still children and are dealt with accordingly. Their perceptions and thought processes are not those that adults just a few years older experience. It was appropriate for the defense to refer to Martin in this fashion.

As for the decision to consider minors as adults for certain crimes, I've never agreed with that. Instead laws concerning juveniles on serious crimes should reflect stronger punishment.

--In the end, it is hard to see how the jury convicts. There is just not enough evidence that GZ was looking to kill anyone. He was watching and he was attacked. Maybe he "pursued" or followed (I am not sure the word matters), but it was clearly only GZ who suffered any injuries before Martin was shot. There is no evidence GZ threw the first punch or did anything else physical.
It may be foolish, but it is not illegal to follow someone. It is not illegal to ask someone what they are doing here. It is being a good neighbor.
It is illegal to jump someone, to punch them, to get on top of them and smash their head on the sidewalk. And it is my legal right to defend myself if I think my life is in danger. GZ thought his life was in danger.

From a legal and logical sense, yes. But I wonder how much internal pressure these jurors feel, possibly knowing they could be triggering some social unrest. Do they decide to go with manslaughter to appease the mob at the expense of one man? Do they fear for their own safety if they return a not guilty verdict?

Anchoring bias, that's how. Overcharge and the evidence looks more like it fits the lesser charge. Demonstrated over and over in research that the first information presented to people biases their subsequent judgments. The overcharge becomes a benchmark that makes the lesser charge seem more reasonable.

"No predictions from me, but this notice: I don't expect the jury's verdict to change any minds, just as I'm certain it won't change my mind."

Why, look at that, we agree!

"Some of you may think the state did meet its burden, at least on manslaugher. Others may grudgingly acknowledge that I'm legally right, but think Zimmerman is a contemptible and racist oaf nevertheless.""

I feel that the prosecution could have done a better job of spelling out the not self-defense case, but then again, I wasn't in the courtroom watching the reactions. There are points I would have hammered on more and more clearly laid out my thinking so that juries had a story other than GZs to go on.

But, I can certainly believe that GZ is guilty of manslaughter based on the evidence -- such as the two very small cuts on his head, the martial arts training plus the gun that may have made him feel he should approach/act aggressively toward someone he found threatening. I've never thought he went out looking for someone to kill that night. However, the fact that it all happened so very quickly does say that he went into that situation with "ill will" and was trigger happy. Less than three minutes from phone call to shooting. Not less than three minutes of wandering around and then the confrontation, fight and shooting -- no, all of it in that time.

I totally ignore what GZ has to say about who reached for whom first and who hit whom first, because there's nothing he can say except "he hit me hard and first" if he wants to avoid jail.

Have you seen the picture of TM dead? Does he look like the scary grown man you've been describing? Have you seen the pants he was wearing? Have you seen his right hand in the picture? Miraculous how he could put GZ in fear for his life with a "brutal beating" (I believe you've used those words, EZ) and yet his hand looks like that. Does that look like the hand of someone who had just been beating someone up (or smashing them up and down onto concrete) moments before? No cuts, no blood, nothing on his right hand and only a small abrasion on his left hand noted at autopsy.

I know you find my version ludicrous. However, I find that both your version, my version and several others fit what we can actually know. The difference is that I don't and can't include anything GZ said about what happened. You, on the other hand treat it as gospel. That's the difference.

"ZORN REPLY -- It is difficult. I'm glad you understand. All I ask is that people who comment here make the rudimentary effort to separate fact from opinion and to have the tiniest idea of what the hell they're talking about. It's a high bar for many of them to clear. Those who do clear it find I don't patronize them. Those who don't sometimes try to fight back with sarcasm, which makes them sound even stupider."

Wouldn't it have been quicker for you to go with "I'm rubber and you're glue" here?

I dispute any fact you use that comes from GZ. That's the difference in our viewpoints. I understand that you could believe him entirely, but I don't accept your premise that his facts are THE facts. Otherwise, my interpretation does follow the facts and contains no more speculation than yours does -- your speculation just happens to rest on the person who may end up in jail, mine doesn't.

You never know with juries. So this is only guess work. But what I have been told is that the more women you have on juries the less the chance they will come back as quickly as if there are more men on the jury.. I would thus have been shocked if they came back today, given that this is I understand an all female jury.A jury expert told us that this was the biggest difference he found between men and women but that he didn't find that much difference in results, just in timing. In other words if the jury came back tomorrow, a more male centered jury might have come back today. I don't know if all expert on the subject agree on this, but the people I know feel that it is the case based on their experience.

"Have you seen the picture of TM dead? Does he look like the scary grown man you've been describing? Have you seen the pants he was wearing? Have you seen his right hand in the picture? Miraculous how he could put GZ in fear for his life with a "brutal beating" (I believe you've used those words, EZ) and yet his hand looks like that."

Jen: If you were on trial, would you want your fate decided by somebody's emotional musings? As opposed to actual evidence? Is Martin not a "grown man" here? I suppose, in the sense that he probably would have continued to grow larger and stronger. Apart from his year and age, how much bigger and stronger would he need to be to qualify? I am way older than he, and I will never be as big or strong as he was, so can we all give up the idea that he was a Skittle-toting waif.

I'm always forgetting the rules -- only those you disagree with have to stick to "undisputed facts" while you saying how you'll not be that big and strong is not a problem?

You didn't actually mention the information about the picture which I noted, that is, the state of his hand immediately after he was shot. That's the fact I was talking about, not your height, weight, age, or musings about how you'd stand up next to Trayvon Martin.

@Wedny:
"Presuming that's the intent of the prosecution, were they wrong to charge 2nd degree? (I don't think this was their intent.)"

Were they wrong to do it? That's is a question I have. Prosecutors definitely overcharge as a device to drive accused into plea bargains, and people do plead guilty to lesser charges because of the threat that they'll be wrongly convicted for even greater charges. But for those who go to trial the overcharge does function as an anchor for the jury, regardless of the intent of the prosecutor. And that has the inevitable effect of making the lesser charge appear more reasonable than it would have otherwise appeared in the absence of the more serious charge.

It does make me wonder if the inclusion of less serious charges should be prohibited or strictly limited to discourage prosecutors from overcharging in ways that incline a jury to convict on lesser charges, not because the evidence standing alone would gain conviction, but because of a trick of the mind. In other words, prosecutors should go into court only when they believe they've got a solid case for the charges. If they are so uncertain about whether they've got guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then maybe they should reduce the charge at the outset.

Did you read about the jury's note yesterday asking for an inventory of all the evidence. That is indicative of a "slow and steady" jury who won't come in quickly. This says nothing about whether they are likely to find Zimmerman guilty. It says more about the jury. All women juries tend from what I have hear tend to be more likely to meticulously go over the evidence even if they all pretty much have their minds made up. This means that them being out longer would not be bad for Zimmerman like it might otherwise. I still say zero chance on murder, no more than 20 percent chance of guilty on any charge.

I found this linked on realclearpolitics.com -- it's an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. It's highly critical (obviously) of the judge in the case.

I'd earlier asked about suddenly throwing in the lesser charge. This editorial seems to think it was not usual and shouldn't have been allowed, citing it as part of her "shameful" behavior: [[Allowing, conversely, the last-minute request of plainly desperate prosecutors to have jurors consider an alternative lesser charge of manslaughter to try to secure some kind of conviction, any kind of punishment, in the complete absence of a sound murder case."

ZORN REPLY -- I did sense her hostility to the defense and felt the limitations she put on them were not common sensical (no idea on the case law). But the addition of lesser included charges is pretty standard in American courtrooms and in general it makes sense to me.
It leaves to the jury certain decisions and in many cases removes from them the burden of saying "we know he did THIS wrong and is guilty to a certain, lesser degree, so we don't want to acquit him of THAT even though we don't think THAT has been proven..."
Investors Business Daily ...the favorite newspaper of Don Wehde (he spelled it Wade for radio purposes).

Both of these are narcissistic personality variations and, unfortunately, there's a good chance that one or the other of these archetypes will be used to fill in the gaps in knowledge.

My own view: the gaps are themselves the reasonable doubt in this case. No need to write a story to fill them. Incidentally, either archetype could be false in this case, it's also possible that both archetypes are correct or partly correct, but that's the problem with filling in the gaps with character. Sometimes it's all we have to go on, but does it substitute for actual evidence? Isn't this how police arrest the wrong guy sometimes? Suspect has a an arrest record a mile long, he must have killed that girl, except he didn't. And in this case, our knowledge of character, both in the case of Martin and Zimmerman, is a lot more spotty than a long police record.

It was telling that John Guy, in his rebuttal, opened by telling the jurors to look into the human heart. That if they really wanted to know what happened that dark, rainy night, they should look into the heart. Hear it for yourselves here;

She fired the guy who told, under oath, the defense attorneys that Bernie de la Rionda had text messages and pictures from Trayvon Martin's cell phone that were exculpatory for George Zimmerman.

Evidence that bore on the ability of Trayvon Martin to fight. Which happens to be one thing in the judge's jury instructions that they were supposed to use to evaluate Zimmerman's claim not to have had any alternative but to shoot.

I've pretty sure that juries use every attempt to make the correct decision, but the lesser charge of manslaughter in a murder trial is a very tempting psychological compromise. With all women on the jury I wouldn't be shocked if this is the verdict they reach, but if GZ is acquitted I will feel really good about their decision, trusting they deliberated in good faith and reason.

And you're blind as a bat if you actually haven't noticed race-baiting from the conservative side on this and as a general approach to politics, magnified in the era of Obama. Race-baiting is the sin qua non of modern, populist conservatism, as is whining about liberal racism and race-baiting black leaders. Al Sharpton's fame is ten times what it would have been without all the conservative race-baiters who love and need him as a reason to dismiss claims of racism. Notice, you're the first person to bring Sharpton up in this thread.

[[ZORN REPLY -- I did sense her hostility to the defense and felt the limitations she put on them were not common sensical (no idea on the case law). But the addition of lesser included charges is pretty standard in American courtrooms and in general it makes sense to me.
It leaves to the jury certain decisions and in many cases removes from them the burden of saying "we know he did THIS wrong and is guilty to a certain, lesser degree, so we don't want to acquit him of THAT even though we don't think THAT has been proven..."
Investors Business Daily ...the favorite newspaper of Don Wehde (he spelled it Wade for radio purposes)]]

My newspaper reporting (and editing) days are 20 years in the past. K know lesser charges are included typically, or that there will be two charges of murder, say, for only one actual murder, because the prosecution is covering different theories of the case.

I didn't think it was typical to charge just ONE thing and then, at the 11th hour, say, "hey, wait! now it might be manslaughter, not murder!" I guess that's part of the judge's discretion.

From Dr. X [[Al Sharpton's fame is ten times what it would have been without all the conservative race-baiters who love and need him as a reason to dismiss claims of racism. Notice, you're the first person to bring Sharpton up in this thread.
]]

Dr. X (by the way, I have visions of Mata Hari and spies running through my head ...) Al Sharpton CERTAINLY did his part in keeping this case front and center. He used his MSNBC pulpit incessently to talk about this case (it's where I first heard about it, and was outraged, initially, until more facts turned what had been a black-and-white presentation into shades of gray). Now ... I think it's good it was investigated, without question. But in terms of inflaming people? Al Sharpton did a good job of it. I think he even led a rally, during the early days.

Apparently, the jury is questioning the manslaughter instruction. Here's the relevant instruction from a pdf file of the jury's instructions.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the
death of Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.

Not guilty. I'm surprised. I thought they'd go with manslaughter, even though I, personally, didn't feel like it had been proved.

My 23-year-old just said, "reverse it ... if this had been a black guy and a white teen-ager, he would have been guilty." I disagreed with her but ... maybe she's right. As I said to her, this does NOT mean I think GZ didn't make some dumb decisions.

Has your teenager somehow never seen a picture of Zimmerman, or does she not understand what "reverse" means, or what? I read that sentiment dozens of times a week, and it's never made sense. The guy is a minority twice over.

@Beth: I have more criticism of the judge.
She appears to be a famewhore, by giving that speech to the jurors on how they can talk or not talk, but then goes on & on about our freedoms, blah, blah, blah.
She just wants more time on TV!
Any bets she quits for a TV court show?

The case rested on a stipulation--Trayvon Martin was knocking George Zimmerman senseless--stated by a proven liar (the same George Zimmerman). The jury chose to believe the liar and exonerate him. There can now be no justice for Trayvon, but conservative superstardom for Zimmerman, who raised over $300,000 from strangers for his defense and now stands to become the conservatives' poster model for...whatever it was he thinks he proved by killing an unarmed black kid.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.